‘Honest Tom’ and ‘The detestable Wharton’
Wharton was one of the most prominent members of the Whig Junto.
Responses to Wharton tended to be emphatic: absolute detestation or complete devotion. To his supporters he was ‘Honest Tom’, the uncompromising adherent of the cause of whiggery. To his opponents he was little better than the devil incarnate. An acrostic that appeared in the Post Boy ran:
Whiggs the first letter of his odious name
Hypocrisy the second of the same,
Anarchy, his darling and his aim;
Rebellion, discord, mutiny, and faction.
Tom, captain of the mob, in soul and action;
O’ergrown in sin, cornuted [horned] and in debt;
Nol’s soul, and Ireton’s live within him yet.Robbins, Wharton, 252; POAS, vii. 487-9.
In the mid-eighteenth century he was still held up as the epitome of factionalism and ‘the detestable Wharton’ featured within Samuel Johnson’s dictionary in a definition of party leadership. He was closely associated with a number of early clubs that helped to consolidate party identities, notably the Kit Cat, of which his second wife was one of the toasts, and the Hanover Club, which flowered briefly in 1712 but was credited with helping to hold the Whigs together when faced with a reinvigorated Tory ministry.
Wharton’s parliamentary career spanned four decades. He sat in the Commons without interruption from 1673 until his succession to the peerage. A bravura performer in the Commons, he was said to have spent two hours a day while on grand tour honing his oratorical skills in the manner of Cicero. In spite of the classical foundation, when he advanced to the Lords he brought to the upper chamber a more informal style of debate.
Perhaps Wharton’s most significant contribution to the politics of the period was to make Parliament the venue for several dramatic confrontations. He championed the proceedings against Sir John Fenwick‡ and Henry Sacheverell as well as manipulating tensions between the Lords and Commons over the case of the Aylesbury men. Yet while a determined foe he rarely lost command of his temper. Even at the height of his rivalry with Robert Harley, who would become earl of Oxford, he was always ready with a humorous quip. Nevertheless, his usual good humour did not disguise his determination to further both his own fortunes and those of the Junto; neither did it in any way limit his willingness to destroy those that stood in his way.
Wharton’s Dissenting background precluded admission to Oxford or Cambridge so he was sent abroad with his younger brother Goodwin, accompanied by Theophilus Gale, and entered at the Protestant academy at Caen. His progress in France was viewed with considerable concern by Gale, who reported back to Lord Wharton:
I am not without some fears and difficulties as to your sons especially Mr Wharton, in point of religion and conversation… My greatest fears are lest they should suck in any atheistical or unchristian principles which though they continue civil in their conversations… for the present, may end at last in open wickedness.
Stoye, English Travellers, 305-6.
Gale’s concerns proved prescient. On Wharton’s return to England he embarked on a career as one of the period’s more outrageous rakes. He affronted his neighbours with wild parties and scandalized society with his odd habit of taking home urchins.
The House of Commons 1673-96
Alongside such activities, Wharton embraced an active political career. He secured election for Wendover in 1673 and by the mid-1670s he was closely associated with the opposition. He was a noted follower of Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, and a regular companion of John Lovelace 3rd Baron Lovelace, and James Scott, duke of Monmouth. The same year in which he was returned to the Commons, Wharton was married to Anne Lee. The match, which had been opposed by the king, consolidated his interest in Buckinghamshire and neighbouring Oxfordshire but precipitated a long and ill-tempered legal battle with his brother-in-law, James Bertie, Baron Norreys (later earl of Abingdon). As well as having to contend with the king’s distaste for the match, Wharton was also forced to fight a duel with another suitor, John Arundell, later 2nd Baron Arundell of Trerice, who disarmed him in the bout. In spite of this Wharton’s interest in the area seems to have convinced Anne Lee’s family to agree to the match even though at least one relative expressed a preference for Arundell’s principles.
Following some last-minute alterations and contrary to his father’s original plan that he would stand for Westmorland, Wharton transferred to Buckinghamshire for the first Exclusion Parliament. He appears to have been reluctant to contest the county seat because of the expense but was evidently prevailed on to lay aside his reservations. He was supported by Lovelace and George Villiers 2nd duke of Buckingham, who combined to ensure his return. Besides his own election Wharton was also engaged with employing his interest at Malmesbury.
Wharton’s notoriety was not confined to his political activities. In 1682 he participated in a scandalous ‘frolic’ at the church of Great Barrington on the Oxfordshire-Gloucestershire borders, vandalizing the place and (possibly) employing the font as a latrine and the pulpit as a close stool. The evening had commenced at the house of one of the local gentry (possibly Reginald Bray of Barrington Park) but rapidly got out of hand. Wharton was compelled to submit to Robert Frampton, bishop of Gloucester, but was let off with only the most minor of penances.
Following James II’s accession Wharton was returned once more for Buckinghamshire in spite of vigorous efforts to thwart his election, led by George Jeffreys, about to become Baron Jeffreys. Sir Ralph Verney‡ reckoned Wharton would ‘serve the king and country very faithfully, though he is wild enough, especially when he is in drink’ but Wharton continued his studied opposition to the regime.
Late in 1685 Wharton suffered the loss of his wife and although it was believed that she had left the majority of her estate to him the event sparked a renewal of tension with his brother-in-law Abingdon (as Norreys had since become) over the inheritance.
Having avoided direct association with the two earlier rebellions, Wharton played a more active part in the 1688 Revolution. His association with the opposition to James’s policies had continued unabated throughout the reign. In 1686 he was credited with the composition of Lilliburlero, set to a tune by Henry Purcell, satirizing the appointment of Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel [I], as lieutenant of Ireland. The following year he stood bail for William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire.
In the Convention, Wharton was to the fore in arguing for William’s succession. He pressed the waverers to accept James’s abdication arguing that ‘abdication and dereliction are hard words for me, but I would have no loophole to let in a king; for I believe not myself nor any Protestant in England safe, if we admit him.’
Wharton quickly became dissatisfied with the new regime, his annoyance no doubt caused in part by a series of personal disappointments. He criticized the king for his employment of ‘flatterers, knaves and villains’, chief among them Tories who, he was convinced, ought to have been excluded from the administration altogether. His frustration boiled over in a letter to the king in which he castigated William for his ‘coldness, slowness and indifference’ which he suggested had both weakened the commitment of the king’s natural friends and strengthened the resolution of his enemies. Worst of all was the king’s broad-bottom policy. This Wharton characterized as ‘trimming between parties’, which he considered ‘beneath both you and your cause’.
The House of Lords, 1696-7
Wharton was present in the Commons on 31 Jan. 1696 but it was noted that he was silent throughout the debate, ‘by which it is thought his father is dead.’ Reports of Lord Wharton’s demise were repeated on 2 February.
The summer of 1696 found Wharton once again overlooked for at least two expected distinctions. Reports in May that he was to be promoted in the peerage to a viscountcy proved not to be true. His anticipated new honour was supposed to coincide with the promotion of his Junto colleague, Edward Russell, to an earldom, which also proved not to be the case.
In spite of such disappointments, Wharton returned to London from a summer visit to his northern estates (according to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland) ‘full of compliment’ and, along with his Junto colleagues, eager to ensure a successful new session of Parliament.
Wharton took his seat just over a week into the new session on 28 Oct. 1696 after which he proceeded to attend on 61 per cent of all sitting days. Throughout the first half of the session he maintained a steady correspondence with Shrewsbury, with whom he enjoyed a somewhat unlikely friendship, and the day before he returned to the House he was engaged in a series of meetings concerning Fenwick. His mind was not so completely taken up with the matter of the impeachment, though, to overlook supplying Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, with ‘a couple of large handsome hounds’.
Wharton was out of town for the second half of November, presumably engaged in canvassing for the Buckinghamshire seat left vacant by the death of Sir Richard Atkins‡. Although Anne Nicholas was confident at first that Wharton would support Sir John Verney‡, later Viscount Fermanagh [I], Verney was not persuaded. Verney’s pessimistic appraisal proved the more astute and Wharton set his weight behind Henry Neale‡ after his original candidate, Pigott, refused to stand. Neale was returned accordingly, leaving Verney in third place. The election revealed several features of Wharton’s close control over those areas in which he was involved. Observing that Verney had only a short time to make his interest felt, Cary Gardiner remarked that Wharton always had ‘one ready in case of any vacancy.’ The election also demonstrated Wharton’s ruthless streak. John Hampden‡, who had been shunned by Wharton after he had blasphemed against Whig orthodoxy by expressing his belief in the reality of the Rye House plot, cut his throat after being abandoned by his former patron.
Wharton returned to the House at the beginning of December and on 18 Dec. 1696 was one of those to speak in favour of the Fenwick attainder. He rebutted the suggestion that the accusations against Fenwick did not amount to treason and urged that to fail to condemn him would only serve to encourage France. Unsurprisingly, he voted consistently in favour of the bill’s passage.
During the remainder of the session Wharton continued to be active in the House, acting as teller in three divisions relating to the case Rex v. Walcott (29 Jan. 1697), amendments to the wrought silks bill (20 Feb.) and the bill in restraint of stockjobbing (15 April). However, having successfully secured Fenwick’s destruction, Wharton suffered a series of disappointments during the course of 1697. He was omitted from the list of lord justices during the king’s absence following the close of the session and in April was overlooked for one of the posts of lord justice in Ireland. The king was at pains to emphasize Wharton’s ‘very good parts’ but explained his decision on the grounds that Wharton, he was sure, would not take kindly to being one of a commission of three.
Wharton suffered further disappointments later in the year. In October it was confidently said that he would succeed Shrewsbury as secretary of state. Wharton himself remained taciturn about the prospect while some of his allies proved reluctant to support his nomination.
Having attended the two prorogation days of 22 July and 23 Nov. 1697 Wharton took his seat at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. after which he was present on 63 per cent of all sitting days. On 12 Mar. 1698 he acted as one of the tellers in the division over the reversal of judgment in the case Rex v. Mellen. Rather more significant, though, were his activities relating to the assault on Charles Duncombe‡. Early in March Wharton was nominated a manager of two conferences concerning the bill for punishing Duncombe and on 15 Mar. he voted in favour of committing it. He then registered his dissent at the decision not to do so.
The Parliaments of 1698 and 1701
About the end of July or start of August 1698, Wharton was offered a diplomatic posting in Madrid, but he rejected the suggestion.
With his Commons’ interest weaker than he had experienced it for some time, Wharton took his seat in the new Parliament on 29 Nov. 1698. He proceeded to attend almost 78 per cent of all sitting days. The apparent decline in his interest did not prevent him from soliciting ‘very vehemently’ on Harry Mordaunt’s behalf for a place as teller of the exchequer, which he claimed had been promised to him at the same time as Colonel Godfrey’s appointment as master of the jewel office.
Wharton was one of a number of Whig grandees to attend a meeting convened by Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, at Boughton in August 1699 and the following month he hosted a similar gathering at his own seat.
Wharton took his seat at the opening of the new session on 16 Nov. 1699, when the Lords ordered several people to be taken into custody on a charge of breaching Wharton’s privilege.
Following the close of the session, it was expected once again that ‘great alterations’ would soon be made at court and that Wharton was one of several Whig lords to be removed from office.
Wharton took his seat shortly after the opening of the new Parliament on 10 Feb. 1701 and was thereafter present on over two thirds of all sitting days. On 29 Apr. he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to agree to a clause in the report on Dillon’s divorce bill and on 15 May he was again a teller for the division whether to agree with the resolution concerning the meeting of Parliament. The death of John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, that spring led to speculation that Wharton would succeed him as lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, though it was not until January of the following year that the appointment was confirmed.
The charged atmosphere was not confined to relations between the Junto and its associates. Following the close of the session, a report circulated that Wharton had been involved in a duel involving five other lords at Newmarket and that he had been slain in the affray. The story, widely circulated and published in the Post Boy, was quickly withdrawn. None the worse for his apparent demise, Wharton returned to the campaign trail that autumn. He approached his Buckinghamshire opponent, Sir John Verney, for his support for Goodwin Wharton’s re-election for the county seat, receiving in return an assurance from Verney that Goodwin’s candidacy was ‘in no way disagreeable’ for him but that he was resolved not to ‘meddle’ in the contest.
Wharton returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701. Present on 64 per cent of all sitting days, early in the session Wharton joined with John Thompson, Baron Haversham, in drawing up a bill for the security of the king’s person in response to the news that Louis XIV had chosen to recognize the Pretender (as James III) following the death of James II in September.
The king’s death a few days later prompted widespread expectation that Wharton and his Junto colleagues would swiftly be turned out of their places. At William’s funeral, Wharton joined the other household officers in breaking their staves; unlike them, he was not reappointed to his position by the queen. Indeed Anne appears to have taken particular relish in snatching Wharton’s staff of office from him in full view of the court and presenting it to his successor.
Wharton’s removal from office came as no surprise. As a member of the Junto he had been expected to be put out on the queen’s accession. His removal was also thoroughly anticipated on personal grounds as his riotous private life was viewed by the new sovereign with dislike verging on revulsion. Over the next few months he was, accordingly, stripped of most of his remaining positions. Abingdon succeeded to the lieutenancy of Oxfordshire and Newhaven to that of Buckinghamshire.
The Parliament of 1702-5
In advance of the meeting of the new 1702 Parliament, Wharton was again at a meeting convened by Montagu in Northamptonshire, which was also attended by Somers.
In mid-November Wharton moved that the House should address the queen concerning the recent success at the battle of Vigo Bay (23 Oct. 1702) and that an estimate of the value of the spoils from the encounter be prepared.
The opening days of January 1703 saw Wharton involved with other contentious business. On 7 Jan. he had moved for a second reading of the bill for George, prince of Denmark and duke of Cumberland, while alerting his colleagues to the concern that part of the proposed measure might contain matter ‘touching upon the privileges and peerage of that House’. On 9 Jan. Wharton joined several other Whigs in taking the remaining Tories in the cabinet to task for the delay in presenting to Parliament a request from John Churchill, duke of Marlborough for his army to be reinforced with an additional 10,000 troops. Two days later, after animated debates in committee of the whole House considering the prince’s bill, Wharton moved that the House might be resumed, which was passed by 54 votes to 46. The House returned to the matter on 19 Jan. when Carlisle led the way by opposing the adoption of the clause permitting the prince to continue to hold office and to attend the House and Privy Council in the event of him surviving the queen. Carlisle dismissed this addition as a tack and Wharton and half a dozen other Whig peers spoke to the same theme.
Wharton’s vigorous defence of the Protestant Succession was demonstrated at the beginning of February 1703 when the Lords took into consideration the bill sent up from the Commons for granting to those who had not yet taken the abjuration oath a further year to comply. Wharton moved that a clause should be added making it treason to attempt to alter the 1701 Act of Settlement or to challenge the claim of Electress Sophia or her son George Lewis (later King George I). On the advice of the judges his proposal was amended to extend only to the immediate heir to the crown.
Wharton was absent from the final week of the session having been taken ill with ‘the spotted fever’.
With his recovery still far from assured Wharton returned to town to prepare for the new session.
Besides these matters, the opening months of 1704 were dominated for Wharton by a series of disputes between Lords and Commons concerning cases in which he was directly involved. The first was the Yorkshire lead mines dispute, in which the Commons took exception to the Lords’ orders of the previous autumn overturning those of the court of exchequer.
In March Wharton was pursuing a case against Sir Arthur Sheen for breach of privilege arising from a case in the Irish exchequer. He was also involved, once again, in actions concerning the settlement of his late wife’s estates. Proceedings relating to this were still in train well into the following parliamentary session. The lack of trust between Wharton and Abingdon by then was made apparent by the latter’s careful instructions to his agent to prevent Wharton from ‘falsifying or embezzling’ any of the documents relating to the settlement.
Wharton was one of a number of peers to attend the thanksgiving at St Paul’s early in September for the victory at Blenheim.
The Aylesbury case continued to occupy Wharton’s attention. On 21 Nov. 1704 Bishop Nicolson noted in his diary that he had found Wharton at his town residence in Dover Street ‘crowded with members of the House of Commons’ as he attempted to court supporters for the struggle to come, though hopes that a breach between the two houses might be avoided seemed to be confirmed towards the end of the year.
Soon after the close of the session, rumours circulated of widespread alterations in the ministry. Wharton was thought likely to succeed to the lieutenancy of Ireland, though Thomas Coningsby†, Baron Coningsby [I] (later earl of Coningsby), was doubtful of such reports. Similar rumours were current early the following year.
If Wharton’s ability to guarantee the election of his candidates appeared compromised, he was still a force to be reckoned with. In July it was reported that the anticipated dismissal of the lord keeper (Sir Nathan Wright) was the result of disagreements he had had with Wharton and other ‘Whiggish peers’ about the commission for the peace in Buckinghamshire and his refusal to follow their commands.
The Parliament of 1705
Wharton took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705 after which he was present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 Nov. he stole a march on the Tory Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, by introducing Richard Lowther, 2nd Viscount Lonsdale, whom he had been at pains to cultivate. Wharton’s success in luring Lonsdale away from his kinsman was all the more impressive when it was pointed out that the young man had dined with Weymouth only the night before and managed not to let slip his intention.
Wharton’s sleight of hand more than hinted at the charged state of affairs in the early days of the session. On 19 Nov. 1705 he was a prominent participant in the debates on the regency bill. According to Bishop Burnet, he spoke ‘in a manner that charmed the whole House’ but his pointed allusions to Tory peers thought lukewarm on the Hanoverian succession were hard to miss. He remarked ironically how the queen’s speech had worked miracles ‘in bringing all men to be zealous for the Hanover Succession’ and then went on to propose various heads for the bill. As far as protecting the succession was concerned, he was uncompromising in his attitude: ‘The only way to do this thoroughly is to bring down the power of France – that great tyrant abroad, who would be a tyrant on us.’ To this end he argued for more rigorous penalties to be attached to correspondence with the court in exile.
Three days later, following an unsuccessful bid by Nottingham to have an address to the queen approved seeking an inquiry into recent reversals in the campaign on the continent, Wharton moved an address to the queen seeking assurance that alliances with the kingdom’s present allies, especially the Dutch, would be maintained, and sought an undertaking that efforts would be made to inspire the allies to prosecute the war against France with vigour. After Wharton’s motion was accepted unanimously, Rochester attempted once again to press Nottingham’s point. Wharton ‘with more assurance than authority’ rounded on him, asserting that his motion was unparliamentary, and moved an adjournment, which was seconded by Halifax.
Wharton’s oratorical duel with Rochester persisted into the beginning of December when the House was again the scene of a lively debate following Rochester’s assertion that the Church was in danger under the administration. Following a series of interventions, Wharton held forth in typically caustic fashion during the proceedings of 6 December. The only danger he suggested he was able to glean from reading James Drake’s pamphlet, the Memorial of the Church of England, was that neither Rochester nor John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham, were in the administration: both, as he was at pains to emphasize, former members of James II’s ecclesiastical commission. Two days later (8 Dec.) he moved that the House might be adjourned to enable the members to recover from several days of long debate. Nicolson thought the true reason was to release three of Wharton’s associates, who were lawyers involved in a case then before the Lords, so that they could participate in the Commons’ debate on the church in danger.
In November 1705 one of his local opponents, Sir Thomas Cave‡, quipped in response to the news of the birth of a daughter to the Whartons that at least it was a girl rather than a boy, and therefore ‘one Whig the less’.
Wharton’s ambiguous stance over combatting the Parton bill may have been in part a result of his eagerness not to damage his already fragile political alliance with Somerset at Cockermouth. Certainly, his detached handling of the affair was in sharp contrast to his lively, focused and very personal participation in other aspects of the House’s business during the session. On 28 Jan. 1706 he was entrusted with the proxy of Willem van Nassau van Zuylestein, earl of Rochford. The following day when the House took into consideration the Commons’ proposed amendments to the regency bill, he opposed ‘smoothly’ the second proposal for the exclusion of certain officers from the Commons, observing that there were other parts of the first succession act still in need of amendment. Having made his point, he moved an adjournment. This was seconded by Sunderland, who underscored his concern at the speed with which they were being required to rush through the legislation, and passed nem. con. Wharton opened the renewed debate on the succession on 31 Jan. pressing that the transmission of the crown should be assured ‘without any clog.’ Once again, he was seconded by one of his Junto brethren, this time Somers.
Wharton was again spoken of as one of those being considered for the lieutenancy of Ireland in the spring of 1706.
Wharton attended two prorogation days on 21 May and 21 November. Prior to the opening of the new session he was active in promoting Thomas Fairfax‡, 5th Lord Fairfax [S], for Yorkshire in the by-election triggered by the death of Sir John Kaye‡, bt.
Progress of the Union negotiations kept Wharton engaged throughout the early months of the session. On 14 Jan. 1707 he rallied to the support of the lord treasurer (Godolphin) following an attempt by the Tories to insist on papers relating to the negotiations to be laid before the House at once.
The end of the session found Wharton intent once more on making progress in his case about the lead mines in Yorkshire.
Wharton returned to the House a week into the new session, the first Parliament of Great Britain, on 30 Oct. 1707 after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. On 13 Nov. he proposed that the House adjourn into committee of the whole the following Wednesday to consider the state of the nation with reference to trade and convoys. He was seconded by Somers and Halifax. He then opened the subsequent debate, which resulted in the appointment of a committee to hear the complaints of merchants protesting at the want of protection for their ships.
Once again an active member of the House, Wharton acted as teller on two occasions during the session, first on 5 Feb. 1708 for the division over the Union completion bill and second on 3 Mar. over whether the House should proceed with consideration of the cause Alibon v. attorney general. As usual, though, he was most actively involved with efforts to destabilize his political foes. In February he was an enthusiastic investigator of the activities of Harley’s secretary, William Greg. He was then one of seven peers (most of them fairly blatant opponents of Harley) elected to examine Greg once sentence of death had been passed.
Following the close of the session, and before Wharton plunged into his usual feverish electoral activity, he joined three other peers in putting his signature to a petition from the inhabitants of the Middlesex towns of Acton and Ealing seeking permission to take down and bury a criminal who had been hanged in chains in their area but whose unpleasant stench was beginning to disturb the populace.
Even if Wharton was less successful than he might have anticipated, Whig advances in the elections enabled the Junto to put increasing pressure on the administration to give way to their demands for office. In this, Wharton was a central participant. During the interval between the close of the old session and opening of the new one Wharton persisted with attempting to employ his interest, recommending among others William Lee to Sunderland for the reversion of the office of sealer of the great seal.
By the end of the summer of 1708 the duumvirs’ inability to secure for the Junto what Wharton, Somers and their associates considered their due had left both camps regarding each other with unease. After weeks of difficult discussion the impasse appeared on the point of being resolved towards the end of October when the death of the queen’s consort altered the dynamic at court and the need to replace Prince George at the admiralty initiated a series of alterations. Wharton was early on mentioned as a likely recipient of the Irish lieutenancy. Somers too was expected to be offered a post, though Godolphin showed no inclination to trouble himself about their other allies.
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1708-9
By early November the shape of the new administration was becoming clearer. Wharton himself was widely understood to have been offered the Irish lieutenancy with Somers returning to the ministry as lord president, and no opposition was expected, as a result, for Onslow as speaker.
Wharton took his place at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 (having previously attended the prorogation day of 8 July), and his appointment was confirmed a little over a fortnight later. By the time of his appointment he was seriously in debt. The day after he had kissed hands for the place some of his creditors took the opportunity of his promotion to dupe his servants into granting them entry to his London house, enabling them to rifle through the contents.
The spring of 1709 was marked by rumours of further honours for Wharton, with him being one of those mentioned as a possible recipient of one of the vacant places as knight of the Garter.
Wharton was not long in detecting that his absence from London was weakening his grip on his colleagues. He was also offended by having officials foisted on him without his agreement. A new muster-master was appointed through Marlborough’s influence, to Wharton’s annoyance, and when Colonel Pennyfeather presented himself as commissary-general and asked for his orders, Wharton refused to comply.
Wharton’s concerns about the reaction to the alterations made to the money bill proved prescient and at the end of July he could only hope that the imminent adjournment would ‘allow the ferment… to abate.’ While he undertook to spare no pains in trying to settle the matter he warned that if he should fail in that, ‘or indeed in anything else, it must not be wondered at.’
Wharton returned to England in mid-September.
Sacheverell, 1709-10
The brouhaha that resulted from Henry Sacheverell’s inflammatory sermon of November 1709 offered the Junto an opportunity to close ranks and co-operate once more. Soon after printed copies of the sermon began circulating in December, the Whig-dominated administration and its law-officers (among them Wharton’s client, Lechmere) began considering ways to respond to the doctor’s harangue. As with the Fenwick trial, Wharton was at the heart of the decision to proceed against Sacheverell by impeachment rather than by common law.
Wharton was present in the House on 15 Dec. when John Dolben‡ brought the impeachment articles against Sacheverell up to the Lords. Wharton’s central role in overseeing the case for impeachment was demonstrated by his nomination to the committee investigating precedents for impeachments later that day and on 16 Dec. he chaired the committee and reported its initial findings. He reported from the same committee again on 22 Dec. and chaired a further session the following day. He returned to the House after the Christmas recess on 10 Jan. 1710. Two days later, the House ordered Sacheverell to be taken into custody. He appeared at the bar the same day when he had the articles of impeachment read out to him. On 14 Jan. Wharton chaired the committee considering Sacheverell’s request to be bailed and on 16 Jan. he reported the committee’s findings to the House, as a result of which bail was set at £6,000. On 24 Jan. Wharton attended a meeting convened by Sunderland and the following day was present in the House when Sacheverell’s answer was brought in.
As well as preparing the Sacheverell impeachment, Wharton was one of two peers to speak out against the place bill in February, following which the measure was abandoned without a division.
Wharton was subjected to abuse by the mob during the night of rioting that followed the opening to the trial and his house was one of those targeted by the rioters. It was presumably in reference to this that he later declared that he would ‘willingly submit to anything, even a fillip upon the nose, so that the doctor might be found guilty.’ Even so he was more fortunate than Dolben who narrowly avoided being lynched.
Wharton was again called on to distract attention from the managers following Sacheverell’s performance on 7 Mar. 1710. When none of the prosecutors seemed clear what to say in answer to the speech, Wharton stepped in to request an adjournment. Once the case had been presented and the focus returned to the Lords, Wharton was again a prominent contributor. On 16 Mar., during the debates over whether or not the Commons had made good the first article against the doctor, Wharton drew attention to the disparity between the ‘spirit of asperity’ apparent in the sermon and Sacheverell’s later mollifying speech before Parliament. The change in tone, Wharton insisted, demonstrated that Sacheverell’s defence was insincere. In response to Sacheverell’s arguments about the nature of non-resistance, Wharton countered, ‘all he has advanced about non-resistance and unlimited obedience is ridiculous and false… The doctrine of passive obedience, as pressed by the Doctor, is not reconcilable to the practice of churchmen.’ Over the following days, he continued to take a prominent role in the debates, speaking in support of the administration and justifying the Revolution. With regard to the latter he was uncompromising in his attitude, declaring starkly at one point ‘if the Revolution is not lawful, many in this House and vast numbers without are guilty of blood, murder, rapine and injustice.’
Wharton’s triumph was short-lived. At the beginning of April he experienced a reverse in a dispute with Colonel John Lovett over the Eddystone lighthouse bill, losing in a division in the Lords by 17 to 15. He was also unsuccessful in attempting to make a party issue over a dispute relating to the parish of Hammersmith. The presentation to the place was claimed jointly by Henry Compton, as bishop of London, and one Burton, ‘a scandalous clergyman’, whose case Wharton supported. The bishop’s right, already awarded to him by the court of exchequer, was upheld on appeal to the Lords.
These relatively minor reverses were cast well and truly into the shade by the unexpected alteration to the ministry brought about by Shrewsbury’s return to office as lord chamberlain. Maynwaring reported Wharton as being ‘a good deal concerned at this turn’, which threatened to reopen the breaches so recently patched together by the Junto uniting to attack Sacheverell.
Wharton was back in Ireland by the late spring of 1710. From there he lambasted his colleague, Orford, for having ousted William Bodens from a place in the admiralty. For this and for his suspected negotiations with Harley, Orford, Wharton declared, ‘ought to hide his head in the cellar, when he considers the barbarity that he has been guilty of upon this occasion.’
The Parliament of 1710
Wharton’s declining influence in the ministry did not in any way negate his eagerness to assert his interest where possible. He remained a crucial figure in holding together the Junto, which found itself under greater pressure than ever, and was credited with dissuading several of its associates from taking service with the new ministry.
By the beginning of October 1710 news of Wharton’s removal from his Irish post was ‘expected every packet’. At the same time he was noted predictably enough by Harley as a likely opponent of his new administration. Wharton’s dismissal was finally announced to the council by the queen on 20 October. He was also put out as chief justice in eyre. No immediate announcement was made about his replacement in that post, but by the end of the year it had been directed back to Abingdon.
Wharton took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710. He was thereafter present on 68 days in the session (60 per cent of the whole). He took a prominent role in rallying to the defence of the army commanders who had overseen the Spanish campaign and were now being examined by the new administration.
On 9 Jan. 1711 Wharton acted as one of the tellers for a procedural division over whether to resume the House from committee of the whole considering the state of the war in Spain. Two days later he subscribed the protests against the rejection of the petitions of Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], concerning their management of the campaign, and against the committee’s resolution that the defeat at Almanza had been brought about by the actions of the allied commanders, Galway, Tyrawley and James Stanhope. On 12 Jan. he protested again at the resolution to censure the ministers for approving offensive operations in Spain. On 3 Feb. he protested twice more. First at the resolution to agree with the committee that found that the army in Spain had not been sufficiently supplied; and second at the resolution that the ministers’ failures had amounted to a neglect of the service.
With the members of the previous administration so fiercely under attack, Wharton and his colleagues seem to have made a particular effort to co-ordinate their activities. In February, Wharton was again noted among those dining at various gatherings attended by other prominent Whig peers.
Early in the summer Wharton was earmarked to be stripped of his lieutenancy of Westmorland.
Wharton attended the two prorogation days of 13 and 27 Nov. 1711 before taking his seat in the new session on 7 December. He then acted as one of the tellers in the division whether to amend the reply to the address. In advance of the session Wharton’s name had been included by Nottingham in a list of peers possibly expected to collaborate in opposition to the ministry’s policy of ending the war and the day after the opening, Wharton was again included on a list of those believed to be in opposition to the ministry. The prospect of unsettling the ministry over the peace negotiations seems to have reinvigorated Wharton. Leaving the chamber after Harley’s, now earl of Oxford, botched attempt to reverse the previous day’s resolution on no peace without Spain, he was seen to clap his hand on Oxford’s back and declare ‘by God, my Lord, if you can bear this you are the strongest man in England.’ There was further evidence of his concerting tactics with his allies in his presence among a number of other Whig notables at a dinner held at the Queen’s Arms.
A week into the session (15 Dec.) the new unholy alliance between Nottingham and the Whigs was made apparent with the re-introduction of the occasional conformity bill, which was to be presented by Nottingham and seconded by Wharton. The prospect caused some mirth and Wharton was unable to restrain himself from making a quip about his nomination of Nottingham and Charles Fitzroy, 2nd duke of Cleveland, to the committee for the address, pointing out that they were well matched both being changelings.
At the opening of 1712 Oxford bolstered the ministry’s ranks in the Lords with 12 new peers in order to ensure the passage of the peace proposals. Following their first appearance on 2 Jan. Wharton asked disparagingly of them whether they were to vote singly or by foreman.
Wharton attended six of the prorogation days between 8 July 1712 and 17 Mar. 1713. He may have spent some of the intervening time in preparation for elections, though his focus during the summer seems to have been on racing. This would appear to have been behind a comment from Sir Thomas Cave in September referring to Wharton’s ‘luck’ at Aylesbury and hoping that the Whigs ‘may never succeed better.’ The following month Cave referred again to ‘King Tom’ and the Whigs’ ability to keep the best horses, because they were so much better funded than their competitors.
Wharton returned to his seat at the opening of the new session on 9 Apr. 1713 and was thereafter present on just under 70 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Apr. he was observed as part of a ‘great crew’ of lords meeting at Somers’s residence in Leicester Fields.
Wharton was able to shrug off the attempt against him in the Lords and the following month he proved similarly immune to another effort in the Commons. Although he was censured, no further action was taken against him as he was protected by the 1708 Indemnity Act.
The close of the session found Wharton once more active in consolidating his interest for the expected elections. He took a party to Woodstock to have them made freemen of the borough so that they would be able to participate in the poll, presumably on behalf of Marlborough’s candidates, who were eventually returned though only after a disputed election. He had poorer success nearer to his own estates. He was unable to secure either of the Buckinghamshire seats for his candidates and there was disharmony at Cockermouth, where he was unable to work effectively with Somerset. The result was a Tory challenger topping the poll there, though Wharton’s associate, Lechmere, was able to secure the second seat.
The Parliament of 1713 and the Hanoverian Succession
Wharton took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on approximately 84 per cent of all sitting days. On 28 Feb. he was entrusted with the proxy of James Berkeley, 3rd earl of Berkeley. In March he led the assault on Swift’s pamphlet, the Public Spirit of the Whigs, but was wrong-footed by Oxford’s careful manipulation of the situation that prevented Swift from being identified.
Wharton was entrusted with Bradford’s proxy on 6 and again on 10 April. On 13 Apr. he registered his own proxy with Dorchester, which was vacated by his resumption of his seat the following day. On 24 Apr. Dorchester lodged his own proxy with Wharton and on 24 May Wharton was also entrusted with that of Charles Willoughby, 13th (CP 14th) Baron Willoughby of Parham. Three days later, he was forecast by Nottingham as a likely opponent of the schism bill. Wharton regarded the bill with unease. ‘It is melancholy and surprising’ he lamented ‘that at this very time a bill should be brought in, which cannot but tend to divide Protestants and consequently to weaken their interests and hasten their ruin’, He then qualified his appraisal. Melancholy it may have been but not so surprising given the ‘mad men’ who were ‘the contrivers and promoters’ of the measure.
By this time, with Somers incapacitated, Wharton was acknowledged by many as the effective head of the Whigs in the Lords.
Wharton’s efforts against the ministry persisted into the following month when he took exception to the queen’s address relating to the Asiento. On 6 July he opened the debate on the Spanish commercial treaty referring explicitly to the belief that Arthur Moore‡ had been offered a substantial bribe for assisting the passage of the measure: ‘he did not doubt one of these gentlemen could make it appear that the treaty of commerce with Spain was very advantageous.’ Two days later he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to address the queen advising her that the benefits of the contract had been lessened by certain individuals’ efforts to obtain personal advantages. The following day he was again one of those to speak out against the queen’s answer but efforts to have Moore censured were frustrated by the prorogation.
Wharton’s struggle against the administration was brought to a premature conclusion by the queen’s final illness and death at the beginning of August 1714. Wharton was initially disappointed of an immediate upturn in his fortunes when it was revealed that his name was not among the regents.
In the elections for the first Parliament of the new reign Wharton exerted his interest in Buckinghamshire as usual. It was rumoured that he had made £1,000 available to ease Richard Hampden’s‡ return, though he was forced to participate in a ‘shameful compromise’ whereby the second seat was conceded to the Tory John Fleetwood‡.
By the time the new Parliament met the following spring, Wharton’s health was failing. His sudden decline was in part attributed by his friends to a bitter dispute with his heir, Philip Wharton†, styled Viscount Winchendon (later duke of Wharton), who had rebelled against his father and contracted a Fleet marriage.
Wharton left an estate valued at over £65,000.
Throughout his career, Wharton sought to make both houses of Parliament venues for settling scores both political and private. His insistence on using the Aylesbury case to hold a Tory-dominated Commons to ransom at the hands of a Whig-majority Lords owed much to his early experiences under Shaftesbury. The ruthlessness with which Wharton (in close association with Somers) pursued Fenwick and Sacheverell by means of impeachment, and even attainder, when a case in the courts would never have succeeded pointed to a steely quality that belied Wharton’s usual bonhomie. His pitiless pursuit of his quarry underscored his absolute commitment to the cause of his party. His dismay at Shrewsbury’s betrayal was quite genuine as was his suspicion of those of his colleagues who demonstrated less fixed political principles, such as Halifax, Orford and even Somers. Only Sunderland, perhaps, shared Wharton’s unwavering belief in the necessity for the Whigs to hold together at all times irrespective of the cause for the greater good. In return, the more extreme Whigs looked to Wharton as their guide and their ‘tutelary God’.
If Wharton’s commitment to his party was unswayable, he was far more willing to compromise on other matters. Swift derided him as ‘a Presbyterian in politics and an atheist in religion’ while continuing to note that despite these ‘he chooses at present to whore with a papist’.
Wharton’s political legacy was short-lived. As an inherent believer in the importance of the Whigs holding together he would have been dismayed by the rapid descent into factionalism among the various Whig groupings following George I’s accession. The steady decline of the House of Lords as a venue where significant political events were settled would also have dismayed him. Nevertheless, his reputation as an orator and as a party manager endured and his demise was quickly marked by a series of works extolling his achievements or decrying his influence. As someone who had so willingly courted controversy, he may not have been displeased by the partisan epitaphs from both sides of the political divide.